Remanded

Rajamanickam v. P.Nageshwari

Madras HC18 Mar 2021CRL RC(MD)/103/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench set aside an order directing the petitioner husband to pay litigation expenses to the respondent wife. The High Court remanded the main maintenance petition to the Judicial Magistrate for disposal within three months and directed the petitioner to file a counter affidavit, noting the petitioner had not initially responded to the maintenance petition.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order; remanded the main maintenance petition to the Judicial Magistrate for disposal within three months; directed the petitioner to file a counter within two weeks.

Rajamanickam Vs P.Nageshwari — Domestic Violence | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Crl. R.C.(MD)No.103 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved On : 05.03.2021 Delivered On : 18 03.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI Crl. R.C.(MD)No.103 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1507 of 2021

¶5

Rajamanickam .. Petitioner Vs. P.Nageshwari .. Respondent

¶6

Prayer : This criminal revision case filed under Section 397 r/w. Section 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the order dated 03.12.2019 made in Cr.M.P.No.1132 of 2019 in M.C.No.28 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai and to set aside the same.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.K.C.Ramalingam For Respondent : Ms.M.Indumathi

¶8

ORDER

¶9

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the order, dated 03.12.2019 made in Cr.M.P.No.1132 of 2019 in M.C.No.28 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai.

¶10

2.The revision petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife. The respondent filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.1132 of 2019 in M.C.No.28 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai, for claiming litigation expenses of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. The trial Court ordered the revision petitioner / husband to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. Against that order, the revision petitioner / husband preferred this Revision.

¶11

3.On the side of the revision petitioner, it is stated that the respondent / wife filed a case in S.T.C.No.71 of 2013 under the Domestic Violence Act and she has filed another case in C.C.No.271 of 2012, under the Dowry Prohibition Act, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai and the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trichy, both the cases were transferred to the Judicial Magistrate, Musiri and were renumbered as M.C.No.30 of 2015 and C.C.No.117 of 2015. When the case in S.T.C.No.71 of 2013 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai, the respondent filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.326 of 2014 for interim maintenance and the same was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai, on 14.02.2014 and the revision petitioner/ husband was directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per month for monthly maintenance.

¶12

4.The revision petitioner/ husband filed a petition in H.M.O.P.No.53 of 2017 before the Principal Sub Court, Trichy and the same was transferred to Sub Court, Manapparai and re-numbered as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

1 / 3

¶14

Crl. R.C.(MD)No.103 of 2020

¶15

O.P.No.27 of 2019. Subsequently, the respondent / wife filed a separate petition in M.C.No.28 of 2018 for maintenance before the Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai and along with the Maintenance Case, she has filed another petition in Cr.M.P.No.1132 of 2019 for litigation expenses. The respondent / wife is already receiving Rs.2,000/- per month as monthly maintenance and she is further claiming maintenance in M.C.No.28 of 2018 and the interim maintenance petition was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai.

¶16

5.The respondent/ wife is working as a Supervisor in the Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, Tiruchirappalli and she is receiving Rs.33,000/- per month as salary and she is also receiving Rs.2,000/- per month from the revision petitioner / husband as interim maintenance. The revision petitioner/ husband was suspended from service from 28.06.2019, based on the complaint lodged by the respondent / wife, as if the husband got a second marriage. The Magistrate failed to note that the son is in the custody of his father / revision petitioner and prayed the impugned order to be set aside.

¶17

6.On the side of the respondent, it is stated that the revision petitioner / husband has not filed any counter in Cr.M.P.No.1132 of 2019. Since he was absent, exparte order was passed by the Judicial Magistrate. The respondent / wife is taking steps for the recovery of the arrears amount by filing Cr.M.P.Nos.36 and 38 of 2020 and that she is doing temporary employment under the Noon Meal Scheme and is receiving a sum of Rs.11,676/- per month as salary. The revision petitioner / husband married another lady, by name, Amutha and the second wife is working as an Office Assistant in Thiyagesar Allai Primary School. The revision petitioner / husband was ordered to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance in Cr.M.P.No.326 of 2014 in S.T.C.No.71 of 2013. Against which, the revision petitioner / husband filed a revision in Crl.R.C.No.10 of 2014 before the Principal District Judge, Trichy. That petition was dismissed. The respondent / wife filed a petition under Section 128(3) for attachment of salary and that petition was allowed, but the Garnishee is not obeying the orders of the Court. Only after filing a contempt petition, the Garnishee is sending the amount properly. The revision petitioner / husband is working as a driver in the Block Development Office and he is having two houses and he is having rental income and getting monthly maintenance amount under the Domestic Violence Act is not a bar for getting maintenance in the Maintenance Case and prayed the petition to be dismissed.

¶18

7.It is seen that the respondent / wife is receiving a salary of Rs.11,767/- per month and she is working as a temporary employee in the Noon Meal Scheme. Admittedly, she is receiving Rs.2,000/- per month as interim maintenance from the husband. She

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

2 / 3

¶21

Crl. R.C.(MD)No.103 of 2020

¶22

has already filed so many petitions against her husband.

¶23

8.In the above circumstances, the impugned order, dated 03.12.2019 made in Cr.M.P.No.1132 of 2019 in M.C.No.28 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai, is hereby set aside. The Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai, is directed to dispose of the main petition in M.C.No.28 of 2018 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The revision petitioner is directed to enter his appearance and to file counter, if any, within a period of two weeks.

¶24

9.With the above directions, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶25

// True Copy //

¶26

/ /2021

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶28

NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶29

¶30

1.The Judicial Magistrate,Manapparai. 2.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶31

3.The Section Officer,(2C) Criminal Section( Records), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶32

The Registrar Judicial, (Soft Copy) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶33

+1 CC to M/s.K.C.RAMALINGAM, Advocate ( SR-12115[F] dated 18/03/2021 ) Crl. R.C.(MD)No.103 of 2020 18.03.2021

¶34

VR(CO) KB(29.03.2021) 3P 6C

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶36

3 / 3

Rajamanickam v. P.Nageshwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajamanickam v. P.Nageshwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Arumugam Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

A.Saravanan Vs S.Padma Priya

D.Ayyappan Vs S.Lakshmanan

Rajamanickam Vs P.Nageshwari

Hdb Financial Services Pvt. Limited Vs The Inspector of Police

Shanmugaraj @ Katta Raj Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police